Professional Liability in Healthcare: Commentary on the Judgment of the Court of Cassation, Section III, No. 5922 of 2024
The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation, Civil Section III, No. 5922 of 2024, provides important insights into professional liability in the healthcare sector. In this case, A.A. sued the Local Health Authority of Turin following a surgical intervention that resulted in significant damages, claiming that the anesthetist acted negligently. However, the Court rejected the compensation claim, emphasizing the need to prove the causal link between the doctor's conduct and the damage suffered.
The Legal Context and Principles of Medical Liability
In Italian law, medical liability is typically classified as contractual liability, as established by consolidated jurisprudence. In particular, the Court clarified that while the patient must demonstrate the causal link between the doctor's conduct and the damage, it is the healthcare facility's responsibility to prove the exact fulfillment of its obligations. This principle is crucial as it establishes a division of the burden of proof that can significantly influence the outcome of a case.
The Court recognized that the causal link is not merely a factual circumstance but must be established through inferential and evidential reasoning.
The Criticisms of the Merits Judgment
The Court of Appeal of Turin found that A.A. had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the anesthetist's negligence. However, the Court of Cassation highlighted that the lower court had confused two fundamental elements: the fact of non-fulfillment and the causal link. A.A.'s defense did not have to prove the doctor's negligence but only the link between the doctor's actions and the damages incurred. Furthermore, it emerged that the reasoning of the judgment was contradictory and that the Court had not taken into account documentary evidence in favor of the appellant.
Conclusions
Judgment No. 5922 of 2024 represents an important step forward in clarifying the dynamics of medical liability, emphasizing the importance of a proper division of the burden of proof. This case highlights how evidential elements must be evaluated in their entirety and how critical it is for patients to be adequately supported in demonstrating their rights.
